[mpiwg-rma] Problems with RMA synchronization in combination with load/store shared memory accesses
jeff.science at gmail.com
Sun Jun 1 14:06:28 CDT 2014
On Sunday, June 1, 2014, William Gropp <wgropp at illinois.edu> wrote:
> We can always do errata.
> William Gropp
> Director, Parallel Computing Institute
> Thomas M. Siebel Chair in Computer Science
> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> On Jun 1, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Jim Dinan wrote:
> I tend to agree with Jeff. On some architectures different operations are
> requires to make my operations visible to others versus making operations
> performed by others visible to me.
> Is this meeting the last call for errata, or is it the September meeting?
> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail.com>
> Remote load-store cannot be treated like local load-store from a
> sequential consistency perspective. If a process does local
> load-store, it is likely that no memory barrier will be required to
> see a consistent view of memory. When another process does
> load-store, this changes dramatically.
> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Rajeev Thakur <thakur at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > I think before ticket 429 (
> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/429) is put up for a
> vote as errata, the RMA working group needs to decide whether remote
> loads/stores to shared memory windows are treated as local loads and stores
> or as put/get operations (for the purpose of the assert definitions). The
> text will be different depending on that.
> > If remote loads/stores to shared memory windows are considered as local
> loads/stores they will be covered under MPI_MODE_NOSTORE; if considered as
> put/get operations, they will be covered under MPI_MODE_NOPRECEDE,
> MPI_MODE_NOSUCCEED, and MPI_MODE_NOPUT.
> > Ticket 429 says they should be considered as local loads/stores.
> > Rajeev
> > On May 27, 2014, at 1:25 PM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Rolf,
> >> MPI_MODE_NOSTORE applies to local updates that should be made visible
> to other processes following the end of the access epoch. I believe that
> visibility of updates made by other processes were intended to be
> incorporated into the NOPRECEDE/NOSUCCEED assertions. I think that
> Hubert's proposal may be the right approach -- that remote load/store
> accesses to the shared memory window should be treated as "RMA" (e.g.
> analogous to get/put) operations.
> >> ~Jim.
> >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Rolf Rabenseifner <
> rabenseifner at hlrs.de> wrote:
> >> Jim and RMA WG,
> >> There are now two questions:
> >> Jim asked:
> >> > Question to WG: Do we need to update the fence assertions to better
> >> > define interaction with local load/store accesses and remote stores?
> >> >
> >> Rolf asked:
> >> > Additionally, I would recommend that we add after MPI-3.0 p451:33
> >> >
> >> > Note that in shared memory windows (allocated with
> >> > MPI_WIN_ALLOCATE_SHARED), there is no difference
> >> > between remote store accesses and local store accesses
> >> > to the window.
> >> >
> >> > This would help to understand that "the local window
> >> > was not updated by stores" does not mean "by local stores",
> >> > see p452:1 and p452:9.
> >> For me, it is important to understand the meaning of the
> >> current assertions if they are used in a shared memory window.
> >> Therefore my proposal above as erratum to MPI-3.0.
> >> In MPI-3.1 and 4.0, you may want to add additional assertions.
> >> Your analysis below, will also show that mpich implements
> >> Post-Start-Complete-Wait synchronization in a wrong way,
> >> if there are no calls to RMA routines.
> >> Best regards
> >> Rolf
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Jim Dinan" <james.dinan at gmail.com>
> >> > To: "MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group" <
> mpiwg-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org>
jeff.science at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the mpiwg-rma